|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
previous story
next story ![]() |
|
"Player Designed Games" Discussion |
|
![]() Hacim
Member since: 8/13/2005 From: Dakota, MN | ||||
| "(Gaming) is the only medium where we yield control of the protagonist. Let's yield control of the director--and the producer," said Allard, a vice president at Microsoft. "We're going to take on the Wikipedia model. We're going to take on...the open-source model, if you will, for gaming." Ok the statement really shows that Microsoft is still in the dark about open source.Wikipedia,yes.But just being able to create maps and models doesn't mean open source. But anyway I do think having more user content is the way to go although actually open source would be far better.But that's really far out in the console realm. | ||||
| ||||
![]() Anonymous Poster | ||||
| ||||
| From the article: "We're going to take on...the open-source model, if you will, for gaming." The above statement doesn't say that their games will be open source. Allard was alluding to the fact that permitting the end user to create content that affects the gameplay in a real way takes some of the game mechanices design away from the developers, in a sense. | ||||
| ||||
![]() Anonymous Poster | ||||
| ||||
| They are referring to the "open source model", which I think you have to translate as "everyone can contribute", not the "open source" per se. | ||||
| ||||
![]() Wudan
Member since: 7/8/2003 From: West Valley City, UT | ||||
| Open-Source? Wikipedia? User created content? All of these generate good feelings, 'good vibes' if you will. It's just more marketing to try to associate them with your products. | ||||
| ||||
![]() ajas95
Member since: 12/4/2003 From: Seattle, WA | ||||
| Isn't this Will Wright, who chapioned "procedurally" driven content with the spore E3 demo? And Gay Allard... Not sure what authority he has to judge anything (resume please?) Of course everyone wants for the players to provide the content... except that 99.99% of what they provide really sucks! You'd love to allow that other .01% to be bought and sold within the community... but who owns the content? Mr Allard if you want community-fostered content, the community must own the content! Don't try to pull some EULA scam where all the community content becomes property of Microsoft... Sony won't, that's for damn sure. | ||||
| ||||
![]() Seriema
Member since: 6/15/2001 From: Stockholm, Stockholms Lan | ||||
| "That's how much human energy we could harness in this medium." Wow, that sounds like something Agent Smith would say... | ||||
| ||||
![]() Ushi
Member since: 1/11/2006 From: Sydney, New South Wales | ||||
Quote: HAHAHA! Dunce. That alone totally invalidates anything you say from now on. You wouldn't understand procedurally created content if I beat you to death with it! | ||||
| ||||
![]() Anonymous Poster | ||||
| ||||
| They really are all talk and no action and behind times. Games such as Warcraft 3 have done it already without much fuss. One needs only to look at the player generated content for War3 and many other projects. Some basic rules still apply. Once you move into design stages a certain amount of logic and method needs to be used, regardless of the langauge or tools used. | ||||
| ||||
![]() makeshiftwings
Member since: 7/13/2001 | ||||
| Yes, yes... I can almost envision it. We could have these things that users can create on their own... modifications, or "mods", we could call them. And then, we could create some sort of network where the users could share these "mods". We could call it "the internet". These guys are really on to something. | ||||
| ||||
![]() Anonymous Poster | ||||
| ||||
| If games didn't suddenly need to allow every mundane thing from the real world, there wouldn't be such a need to put the burdon on players to create everything. Some games just don't lend themselves well to this ideology. Do gamers really want to make their own 3D models and artwork or even design levels..for every game? What's wrong with the current modding scene? | ||||
| ||||
![]() Anonymous Poster | ||||
| ||||
| The main gist of their current blather is to make the sharing of content within the game itself. The whole point is that you won't have to go to a fan-site and sift through a whole bunch of mods to find one you want... you'll just open a door in the game world and walk through. | ||||
| ||||
![]() Oluseyi Staff
Member since: 5/14/2001 From: New York, NY | ||||
Quote: Quote: Yeah. "EULA crap," like facilitating an actual source of income for your creations. Damn those rational capitalist guys at EA and Microsoft! You got it wrong, anyway. The "community" shouldn't own the content; the originators should. If the "inner city kid" spends two hours or more designing a pair of virtual sneakers and they become popular within an Xbox 360 basketball game, the profits from in-game purchases of those sneakers should go to the kid, and his creation should be protected - no other member(s) of the "community" should be able to sell it to others without his permission. There are many, many implementation issues to be resolved before a situation like this can actually arise, but the reflexive bashing on the basis of the proponents - and ignorant commentary of "not getting open source" - is disheartening. | ||||
| ||||
![]() Jekler
Member since: 10/12/2004 From: USA | ||||
| I've got issues with player-created content, mods and the like. For the most part, the players really don't know what's best, or most fun, for themselves. They think they know the features they want, but concepts like gameplay balance are beyond the average player. To the average player, game play balance means everyone in the game has the same abilities as every other player in the game. So if you give everyone in the game a weapon that kills everyone in the game as soon as they click their mouse, the game is balanced as long as everyone has it. (I've seen exactly these kinds of mods for Tribes, Quake, and the like). Additionally, the very things that players request (or mod) in a game frequently end up being the reason they stop playing the game. They request more experience, more devastating weaponry, and more options. When give those things, they stop playing because it's too easy to advance, creatures die too easily, and a vast array of options makes customization too complex. I'm not saying the average player is stupid. I'm saying they don't have a firm grasp of the concepts that go into designing and implementing well-balanced features. Every player just wants one more feature that they think would make the game so much cooler. You end up with a game that has nuclear weapons, phasers, space ships, elves, dragons, earthquakes, a built-in calculator, web browser, and a file explorer, in a program that originally started as NCAA Championships 2005. | ||||
| ||||
![]() makeshiftwings
Member since: 7/13/2001 | ||||
Quote: I would have to see this to believe it; every game so far has completely denied the ability to profit off of any mod whatsoever. Many game companies go out of their way to threaten legal action against anybody who seems to be profiting off of any use of the game or its mod tools. I guess in theory it's possible that somehow MS will want to share the wealth and set up some kind of new marketplace for modding their games, but it seems very doubtful right now. I don't think they have that much to gain when they already have, as they say, a huge group of developers who will create tons of content for their game absolutely free. The legal hassles of publicly sponsoring and taking a cut from modders that you know nothing about and who might be pirating assets and tools from who-knows-where is also mind-boggling. I just don't see it happening. | ||||
| ||||
![]() Simagery
Member since: 2/4/2000 From: Austin, TX | ||||
| I think all of you are missing the more fundamental (and artful) point that Mr. Wright (and by extension, Mr. Allard) are trying to make... not just making game content "open source" and mod-frienly so that some wannabe-modeller can create yet-another-Counterstrike-map. The "better" approach is to make users creating content invisible... to make it as seamless as real life, where the fact that you exist and participate in this game we call "society" directly contributes to my experience in this game called "society." If you do some thorough listening of Will Wright's GDC Spore demo you'll begin to understand that the real beauty of what he's suggesting is having one player's interactions in the game world fuel other players' interactions in their game worlds. No, not multiplayer, at least not in the traditional sense. I think of it more like parallel universes that intersect at useful points. The canonical example from Spore: Bob, in New York, is playing Spore, an aspect of which is "building" a creature and "evolving" it through time. Meanwhile, John, in San Diego, is playing Spore as well doing the same things that Bob is doing. Being that the "palette" of options available to the player for building their creatures is pretty wide open and very flexible, these guys inevitably create dramatically different creatures. And while Bob and John are not directly interacting with each other, the little brain inside of their individual copies of Spore is broadcasting their finally crafted creatures out into the ether. Of course, one day Bob will go exploring in the distant reaches of his universe and discover a nice little planet called John's Hop-Kids, inhabited by an amazing race of bouncing babies... quite extraordinary! But, of course, maybe I'm missing the point... in which case, the above idea is totally patented by yours truly. | ||||
| ||||
![]() sdebo
Member since: 7/29/2004 From: Idaho, NY | ||||
| I think they mean 'open source' as in get people to create game content for zero pay. The more content developed, the better the game and the more income the game publisher will get. I bet the small print will also say that anything players develop will be owned by the company. In any case, anything the player creates or customises will still be subject to the game producer's rules, so there is limited creative potential. If you create an addon for a game and share it you get fame. If the system encourages and facilitates it, and there are hundreds doing it, fame is no longer an issue. Contributors must then be paid in some other currency. What about royalties? | ||||
| ||||
All times are ET (US)![]() | previous story
next story ![]() |
|